Tricks New Atheist Play (Part 1)

[zippy2006]

Sure, some folks tacitly agreed with your proposed claim. But that isn't making that specific claim.

Not tacitly, explicitly. And what is the relevant difference between agreeing with a claim and making a claim?

It's not a straw man because I didn't say it actually acknowledges the existence of a god, it implicitly acknowledges. That's why you get push back on trying to tell atheists that is the claim they make. You're implying that a god does exist, and the atheist is denying it.

But I didn't get any pushback, and it does not imply that. The statement itself precludes the implication that the subject actually exists. An extended version would be, "The concept of God is not worthy of belief."

Do all atheists think this? How do you know that what all atheists think? If it isn't all atheists, then you need a watered down version, like the one I posited, to make a claim for atheists in general.

New Atheists, as should have been clear from the context of our discussion. I made that explicit in an edit, but apparently only after you began to reply.

Your condescending remarks about atheists trusting other atheists to do their thinking for them is noted though.

Arguments from authority are not invalid, and they constitute one reason why New Atheists favor the broader claim.

I didn't ask about "legitimate" I asked if that would be your natural response. Very different questions.

Yes, it would be my most natural response. I prefer pith and precision.

As to your elephants, that only works for regular old elephants. Once we start saying the elephants are invisible, and intangible, and smarter than us, and have good reasons to hide from us, it takes away any evidence for their non existence we can muster.

Nah. You just ask how the people who claim to know they exist came by that knowledge and reproduce their method. You look for elephants with your eyes and God with your mind or heart.

Can you even point me to an argument, made by atheists, that actually attempts to disprove the existence of a god? I haven't seen one. Ever.

Sure. You recently made one. Here. You attempted to prove that the omnipotent God of Christianity does not exist.

For example, the problem of evil could only prove that a god isn't good.

It would prove that a good God doesn't exist.

Arguments about the origins of the universe can only prove that a god isn't necessary.

It would prove that a necessary God does not exist.

Sure. But I have never seen an argument that says, "no god(s) exist".

I suppose you would have to show that the concept of God is either incoherent or incompatible with reality as we know it. A demonstration of the non-existence of God would certainly be a tall task, but we hold many beliefs that are not demonstrable.

 

[variant]

Language is metaphorical by nature, and draws meaning from intense experiences that are analogically similar to other phenomena. For example, you dislike the connotation of violence in "militant," but three of the words you give as alternatives also connote violence: "combative," "aggressive," and "quarrelsome."

Less so IMO.

While I understand the idea of argument as a sort of metaphor for struggle or combat, I do not think the idea of framing ones opponents as "militants" is either appropriate or helpful.

I also think this particular well is poisoned enough intentionally without doing it subconsciously.

 

[Moral Orel]

But I didn't get any pushback

Really.... That thread got closed, and you got no pushback at all. I did read a lot of the thread an numerous responses to your suggestion. I'm not making a judgement based on the fact it closed.

New Atheists, as should have been clear from the context of our discussion.

No, that isn't clear, and it isn't even the context of the thread. The OP wanted to call them out by name, dubiously in my opinion, but he is still stating that claiming no claim is unacceptable, and you offered a claim to remedy that. And again, even if we were only talking about New Atheists, which we aren't, many of them too would change their mind given sufficient evidence, so your assessment of what they think is still wrong.

Arguments from authority are not invalid, and they constitute one reason why New Atheists favor the broader claim.

Nice moonwalk.

Nah. You just ask how the people who claim to know they exist came by that knowledge and reproduce their method. You look for elephants with your eyes and God with your mind or heart.

If you can't see the elephants it's because you aren't really looking. It's because you don't want to see them. (I tried what you suggested long ago and it didn't work).

Sure. You recently made one. Here. You attempted to prove that the omnipotent God of Christianity does not exist.

It would prove that a good God doesn't exist.

It would prove that a necessary God does not exist.

I suppose you would have to show that the concept of God is either incoherent or incompatible with reality as we know it. A demonstration of the non-existence of God would certainly be a tall task, but we hold many beliefs that are not demonstrable.

So then no, you also have never seen an argument that attempts to disprove the existence of a god. You too have only seen arguments that state, "god(s) can't be what you think they are". So any other idea on how exactly someone shows evidence of the non existence of something?

 

[zippy2006]

No, that isn't clear, and it isn't even the context of the thread.

I think it is the context of the thread, or at least a very substantial part of it.

And again, even if we were only talking about New Atheists, which we aren't, many of them too would change their mind given sufficient evidence, so your assessment of what they think is still wrong.

What does it matter if they would change their mind? How does that affect what I've said at all?

Nice moonwalk.

You mischaracterized me and I pointed out your mistake.

If you can't see the elephants it's because you aren't really looking. It's because you don't want to see them. (I tried what you suggested long ago and it didn't work).

If you've looked in all the places you think God would be and didn't find anything then you're welcome to the conclusion that he doesn't exist.

But given your interest in CF and theology I don't think your search is finished.

So then no, you also have never seen an argument that attempts to disprove the existence of a god.

I pointed out three of them.

You too have only seen arguments that state, "god(s) can't be what you think they are".

Or, "The God you believe in doesn't exist." Same difference.

So any other idea on how exactly someone shows evidence of the non existence of something?

Nothing that I haven't already given.

 

[variant]

Then I'd say you don't have a very good imagination, because TaliatelliMonster and HitchSlap both agreed with that claim. Further, not a single atheist disagreed with it.

They wouldn't, it is entirely fine.

The problem is this is how they would say it:

"God is not in evidence and thus unworthy of belief."

As a response to:

"God exists."

And they could reword it:

"Your claim is not in evidence."

So, anyone who makes such a claim is an atheist unless they believe despite their viewpoint that the point is not in evidence.

This splits the difference between knowing and believing, which atheists here and elsewhere else you have argued this that I have seen, have tried to demonstrate to you a few times, and is one of the reasons for the definition you keep arguing with.

Many if not most atheists are agnostic, so the definition is broader to encompass both.

Plenty of people surpass the minimum definition, but it's not a trick, but a difference in their ideas.

 

[zippy2006]

They wouldn't, it is entirely fine.

The problem is this is how they would say it:

"God is not in evidence and thus unworthy of belief."

As a response to:

"God exists."

And they could reword it:

"Your claim is not in evidence."

So, anyone who makes such a claim is an atheist unless they believe despite their viewpoint that the point is not in evidence.

While I am glad that we largely agree, I will pick a few nits. Basically, I think the stand-alone formulation, "God is not worthy of belief," is preferable for two reasons.

First, it need not occur in the context of a dialogue with a theist. An atheist could just as well express the claim to his atheist or agnostic friend, and it would be just as true (for him). More than just believing that a single theistic justification is faulty, the atheist believes that all of the theistic justifications he has heard are faulty, and may even believe that the ones he hasn't heard would also fail under scrutiny. The phrase could represent either of the two latter possibilities insofar as it could mean, "God is not worthy of (my) belief," or "God is not worthy of (anyone's) belief."

Second:

"God is not in evidence and thus unworthy of belief."

This just adds a reason to support the claim. But it is not the only conceivable reason. Perhaps he thinks that the problem of evil undermines God's existence. Perhaps he thinks causal superfluity undermines God's existence. Perhaps he thinks religious contradictions undermine God's existence. Better, I think, to just state the claim and leave supporting reasons to particular discussions.

Which splits the difference between knowing and believing, which atheists here and elsewhere have tried to demonstrate to you a few times, and is one of the reasons for the definition you keep arguing with.

Many if not most atheists are agnostic, so the definition is broader to encompass both.

Plenty of people surpass the minimum definition, but it's not a trick, but a difference in their ideas.

I don't follow. You'd have to elaborate. I am not arguing against a broad definition, but rather proposing a more helpful alternative to the generally accepted broad definition (in response to the OP's criticisms of the broad definition). The only persons conceivably excluded by, "God is not worthy of belief," are infants and those who have never considered the question.

 

[variant]

First, it need not occur in the context of a dialogue with a theist. An atheist could just as well express the claim to his atheist or agnostic friend, and it would be just as true (for him). More than just believing that a single theistic justification is faulty, the atheist believes that all of the theistic justifications he has heard are faulty, and may even believe that the ones he hasn't heard would also fail under scrutiny. The phrase could represent either of the two latter possibilities insofar as it could mean, "God is not worthy of (my) belief," or "God is not worthy of (anyone's) belief."

There is always a theist in the room with respect to atheism as all the idea does is respond to the claims of theists.

We do not exist independently of you, but instead, because of our response to the community of theists and their claims. Without claims of theism, we would not parse these issues this way.

This just adds a reason to support the claim. But it is not the only conceivable reason. Perhaps he thinks that the problem of evil undermines God's existence. Perhaps he thinks causal superfluity undermines God's existence. Perhaps he thinks religious contradictions undermine God's existence. Better, I think, to just state the claim and leave supporting reasons to particular discussions.

Being contradictory or otherwise untenable are ways of not being in evidence. So, I would disagree.

The issue here is that I think every atheist in one way or another accepts such a claim.

The problem of evil if entirely correct for instance doesn't disprove every God just specific claims about it in a given theology.

I think that the lacking nature of theistic claims will be at the heart of any atheistic viewpoint.

I don't follow. You'd have to elaborate. I am not arguing against a broad definition, but rather proposing a more helpful alternative to the generally accepted broad definition (in response to the OP's criticisms of the broad definition). The only persons conceivably excluded by, "God is not worthy of belief," are infants.

The broad definition serves a purpose for atheists, just not the one the OP envisions. It's our "big tent" definition that recognizes what the minimum requirement to be an atheist is to lack a belief in God.

It is also fine as it is, the OP's criticisms aren't very good.

The usual burden shifting position just isn't going to convince people who want evidence.

"New theists" apparently spend all their time trying to argue that it is the atheist who has a duty to show God to be false rather than supporting their own position.

 

[zippy2006]

There is always a theist in the room with respect to atheism as all the idea does is respond to the claims of theists.

We do not exist independently of you, but instead, because of our response to the community of theists and their claims. Without claims of theism, we would not parse these issues this way.

While it may be true that the existence of atheism depends on the existence of theism, this does not mean that definitions of atheism only make sense in the context of a literal dialogue with theism. An atheist formulates his reasons for atheism over time through the context of various different discussions and investigations, and therefore the end product of his atheism is not limited to any one dialogue or theistic viewpoint. (We may not be disagreeing at all here)

Being contradictory or otherwise untenable are ways of not being in evidence. So, I would disagree.

The issue here is that I think every atheist in one way or another accepts such a claim.

The problem of evil if entirely correct for instance doesn't disprove every God just specific claims about it in a given theology.

I think that the lacking nature of theistic claims will be at the heart of any atheistic viewpoint.

But an argument like the problem of evil concludes with something much stronger than "God not being in evidence." It concludes with the necessary non-existence of God. I think my point holds.

The broad definition serves a purpose for atheists, just not the one the OP envisions. It's our "big tent" definition that recognizes what the minimum requirement to be an atheist is to lack a belief in God.

It is also fine as it is, the OP's criticisms aren't very good.

The usual burden shifting position just isn't going to convince people who want evidence.

"New theists" apparently spend all their time trying to argue that it is the atheist who has a duty to show God to be false rather than supporting their own position.

As I've said here and elsewhere, I have no large problem with the general broad definition. While I grant that the OP's arguments aren't overly strong, they do evidence a kind of sloppiness in the broad definition (which shows forth in the not uncommon atheist claim that infants are atheists). Something like "God is not worthy of belief" would remedy these issues. At the very least the concept of the volitional holding of a position could be introduced into the definition.

But we're scraping the barrel. I'll give you the last word unless you bring up something new.

 

[variant]

While it may be true that the existence of atheism depends on the existence of theism, this does not mean that definitions of atheism only make sense in the context of a literal dialogue with theism.

Except that was exactly my claim.

The way atheism exists is as a set of ideas in response to a differn't idea, it's antonym.

An atheist formulates his reasons for atheism over time through the context of various different discussions and investigations, and therefore the end product of his atheism is not limited to any one dialogue or theistic viewpoint. (We may not be disagreeing at all here)

It responds over time to the core theistic viewpoint:

"God exists"

But an argument like the problem of evil concludes with something much stronger than "God not being in evidence." It concludes with the necessary non-existence of God. I think my point holds.

No, taken as entirely true, it concludes a God defined as the argument defines it can not exist.

The problem of evil for instance, is only a problem if God can't be evil (evil as defined by the argument)...

As I've said here and elsewhere, I have no large problem with the general broad definition. While I grant that the OP's arguments aren't overly strong, they do evidence a kind of sloppiness in the broad definition (which shows forth in the not uncommon atheist claim that infants are atheists).

Yes but you can of course, clear that up again by knowing that the idea of atheism is a response claim to theism, which is only necessary to those which understand the basic problem, and what is being claimed.

My cat for instance can't understand your claims of God, so doesn't respond to them. They (cats) don't exist in our mindset, the one permeated with theism. Without theism there is no atheism.

Cat's aren't atheists because they can't begin to understand the issue.

My response to the OP was that they have that discussion with their cat. I wasn't joking, that is a serious and adequate argument against the OP's silliness.

Something like "God is not worthy of belief" would remedy these issues. At the very least the concept of the volitional holding of a position could be introduced into the definition.

I think the issue is better dealt with by understanding the overall dialog and not weirdly claiming that atheists think cats are atheists.

But we're scraping the barrel. I'll give you the last word unless you bring up something new.

Best regards then.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think it is the context of the thread, or at least a very substantial part of it.

In all honesty, I don't believe this thread is anything more than a rant about something that the discussion was closed on. As long as the OP continues to imply that anyone who claims atheists make no positive claims are, in fact, "New Atheists" the context of this thread is what he thinks New Atheists are. Not what we think they are. You don't have to be a New Atheist to understand the futility of trying to disprove the existence of Russell's teapot, and that's all the problem is.

What does it matter if they would change their mind? How does that affect what I've said at all?

So here's what you said again, since it's a few posts back:

they think that even the arguments that they have not examined fail. They think that all believers are mistaken, even before hearing the particular arguments of each individual believer.

You said that they assume arguments are wrong before hearing them. There's no possible way you could know that, and I've never met anyone who has said that (though I'm sure some exist) and I have heard people who actually claim to be "New Atheists" say the opposite. If someone says, "I'll change my mind when presented with real evidence" they do not believe "every bit of evidence out there is bad". They have only gone so far to say "I have seen no good evidence" and that's exactly what I've heard, for example, Dawkins and Krauss (mentioned by the OP as being New Atheist propagandists) say: "I'll change my mind when presented with real evidence".

The larger point, though, is that unless all New Atheists think the way you think they do, and none of them think the way I think they do, then you can't make a generalized claim for all of them that doesn't apply to all of them. My claim can apply to all of them even if they take it further than my proposed claim, your claim cannot.

You're attempting to craft a generalized claim for a group of people that there is no reason to think they agree with. There's good reason to think that my crafted claim would apply to all of them.

The only way my proposed claim doesn't work is if there is an atheist who might say, "I've heard good arguments for the existence of God, but I choose to not believe them". And since belief isn't a choice, that hypothetical person isn't honestly plausible.

You mischaracterized me and I pointed out your mistake.

Having "faith" in an atheist to make arguments you have not heard is not an argument from authority.

Or, "The God you believe in doesn't exist." Same difference.

Not at all similar. If my omniscience argument won, you would still believe He talked to Abraham and Moses, you would still believe that He sent His son to die for our sins, you would still believe that He is coming back someday, etc. Same person, just a different conception of who that person is.

I'm wearing a black shirt. I have made the claim to be a person in a black shirt. Let's say you hack my computer, peer through my camera and see me in a blue shirt. You record the video of me typing this and post it to YouTube and say, "See! He is not a man in a black shirt, he is a man in a blue shirt!". You didn't disprove I exist. All you did was prove that I'm not who I claim to be.

Let's look at the problem of evil for a second. It has two horns, either God is less than omnipotent, or God is less than perfectly good. That's all it says. If you somehow became convinced that argument was true, you would merely have to change how you conceive of God in one way or the other, you would not have to stop believing that everything was created by an intelligent being. God would still exist, He just wouldn't be who you thought he was.

Ironically, you the theist, is twisting a proof into something it isn't in the way that a lot of atheists try to twist it. I'm acknowledging the lack of power behind atheist arguments, and you're trying to tell me they're better than they are.

But given your interest in CF and theology I don't think your search is finished.

I hang out in the Apologetics section to see if there is a plausible concept of God. If there ever came a time that God was evidenced, I would understand how I could best understand Him. But having that understanding doesn't make Him real, those are two different things. I've been thinking about rewording my problem of evil & free will thread, and that's the big one for accepting Christianity if I believed a god existed at all. You noticed how my initial posting can be clumsy, I'm sure. That one was worse.

 

[zippy2006]

You said that they assume arguments are wrong before hearing them. There's no possible way you could know that, and I've never met anyone who has said that (though I'm sure some exist)...

Variant admits the general tendency here. If I said to Dawkins, "I am going to present you with an argument for theism that you have never heard, and before seeing it you will be given the chance to privately wager on whether the argument will convince you." Do you think he would wager against the argument? I think it is obvious that he would. Heck, you yourself admitted that the New Atheists are militant, combative, disparaging. They mock religious people, they think they are stupid. They produce documentaries showcasing fundamentalists denying scientific consensus. You don't think any of this produces any sort of inclination about new arguments?

and I have heard people who actually claim to be "New Atheists" say the opposite. If someone says, "I'll change my mind when presented with real evidence" they do not believe "every bit of evidence out there is bad".

Why not? There's no contradiction in thinking that no real evidence exists and yet that you would change your mind were real evidence discovered. This is the root of your error imo.

The larger point, though, is that unless all New Atheists think the way you think they do, and none of them think the way I think they do, then you can't make a generalized claim for all of them that doesn't apply to all of them. My claim can apply to all of them even if they take it further than my proposed claim, your claim cannot.

You're attempting to craft a generalized claim for a group of people that there is no reason to think they agree with. There's good reason to think that my crafted claim would apply to all of them.

The only way my proposed claim doesn't work is if there is an atheist who might say, "I've heard good arguments for the existence of God, but I choose to not believe them". And since belief isn't a choice, that hypothetical person isn't honestly plausible.

This is all based on the dichotomy between believing that all religious evidence is faulty and being willing to change one's view if good evidence was found. But that dichotomy fails, as noted above.

Having "faith" in an atheist to make arguments you have not heard is not an argument from authority.

Sure it is. I've explained faith as an argument from authority many times, most recently here.

Not at all similar. If my omniscience argument won, you would still believe He talked to Abraham and Moses, you would still believe that He sent His son to die for our sins, you would still believe that He is coming back someday, etc. Same person, just a different conception of who that person is.

I'm wearing a black shirt. I have made the claim to be a person in a black shirt. Let's say you hack my computer, peer through my camera and see me in a blue shirt. You record the video of me typing this and post it to YouTube and say, "See! He is not a man in a black shirt, he is a man in a blue shirt!". You didn't disprove I exist. All you did was prove that I'm not who I claim to be.

It just depends on how close you think the attribute is to the essence of the person. For example, suppose Bob goes on a dating site and uses a fake name (Joe), a fake picture, a fake description, and a fake history. Linda has been chatting with Bob online and reading his information. She is getting ready to go on a date with "Joe" when her sister confronts her: "Linda, Joe doesn't exist. The whole thing is a sham." It's not inappropriate to say he doesn't exist. In the same way, the God as described doesn't exist. If the attribute in question is thought to be accidental we would tend to say the attribute doesn't exist; if it is thought to be essential then we would say the god doesn't exist. There's no canonical rule that it must be one way or another.

Let's look at the problem of evil for a second. It has two horns, either God is less than omnipotent, or God is less than perfectly good. That's all it says. If you somehow became convinced that argument was true, you would merely have to change how you conceive of God in one way or the other, you would not have to stop believing that everything was created by an intelligent being. God would still exist, He just wouldn't be who you thought he was.

Different people would respond differently. Some would adopt atheism, and some would adapt their understanding of God.

Ironically, you the theist, is twisting a proof into something it isn't in the way that a lot of atheists try to twist it. I'm acknowledging the lack of power behind atheist arguments, and you're trying to tell me they're better than they are.

It's largely a matter of semantics. My point is that it isn't strictly true to claim that no argument can disprove the existence of a god.

I hang out in the Apologetics section to see if there is a plausible concept of God. If there ever came a time that God was evidenced, I would understand how I could best understand Him. But having that understanding doesn't make Him real, those are two different things.

That's true. What is your educational and religious background?

I've been thinking about rewording my problem of evil & free will thread, and that's the big one for accepting Christianity if I believed a god existed at all. You noticed how my initial posting can be clumsy, I'm sure. That one was worse.

Ha. I looked at it and I see what you mean. It's a complicated topic though. I think your approach in your recent thread on uncertainty was better insofar as you didn't try to do too much in the OP. You kept it simple and then provided elaboration as the thread went on. Problems tend to occur when you try to do too much with an OP. I am often guilty of that mistake.

 

[Moral Orel]

Variant admits the general tendency here. If I said to Dawkins, "I am going to present you with an argument for theism that you have never heard, and before seeing it you will be given the chance to privately wager on whether the argument will convince you." Do you think he would wager against the argument? I think it is obvious that he would. Heck, you yourself admitted that the New Atheists are militant, combative, disparaging. They mock religious people, they think they are stupid. They produce documentaries showcasing fundamentalists denying scientific consensus. You don't think any of this produces any sort of inclination about new arguments?

And as Variant pointed out, it is more about not expecting the argument to actually be new than it is that no such argument could possibly exist.

Sure it is. I've explained faith as an argument from authority many times, most recently here.

Yeah, I followed that too (I lurk in a lot of places). I agree with TM that using the word "faith" for something like the belief that Australia exists is inappropriate. Although, yes, technically we could use the word faith for everything beyond the most basic things we can know, Descartes and all that. I agree that "faith" just means "belief", you saw that post I made, but it carries connotations with it. It's still a whole different thing to rely on someone to argue for us, without even hearing the arguments, and believing they argued well. The fine-tuning argument is a good one, for example (not great, but good). I didn't know enough about the cosmos to argue against it when I first heard it, sure. But I can watch Sean Carroll or Lawrence Krauss explain the problems with it, understand their reasoning, and then see its faults. That isn't the same as saying, "I saw there was a YouTube debate between Carroll and Craig, no I didn't watch it, but I have faith Carroll won". I did watch it, though, and he did win. That topic, anyways. He spun out of control in another direction for a bit and that was sloppy.

It just depends on how close you think the attribute is to the essence of the person. For example, suppose Bob goes on a dating site and uses a fake name (Joe), a fake picture, a fake description, and a fake history. Linda has been chatting with Bob online and reading his information. She is getting ready to go on a date with "Joe" when her sister confronts her: "Linda, Joe doesn't exist. The whole thing is a sham." It's not inappropriate to say he doesn't exist. In the same way, the God as described doesn't exist. If the attribute in question is thought to be accidental we would tend to say the attribute doesn't exist; if it is thought to be essential then we would say the god doesn't exist. There's no canonical rule that it must be one way or another.

Since we're talking about arguments to be formulated by atheists, we're talking about what attributes make up the essence of a god from their perspective. I think it's fair to say that the only attributes an atheist finds necessary would be the creator of the universe. That creator doesn't need to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnibus, or even necessarily eternal. Such a god doesn't need to create ex nihilo either. Since a theist can always scale their beliefs back from all the omnis and nothings at a whim, there is no argument to make that proves the universe wasn't created. Accept the multiverse theory? Then such and such god created the multiverse which burps up universes.

If the problem of evil wins, and god is proven to be less than perfectly good, it still doesn't disprove that anything He did in the Bible didn't happen. It could all still be 100% true, except when it describes God as "love" or "just".

Arguing against a creator is futile, except to argue that there is no good reason to start believing in one because there is no evidence for one. That is the atheist claim: evidence for God is bad; no one should have started believing in a god based on the reasons given. Revelation would be the only good evidence, in my opinion, but I've heard it best explained that revelation is only revelation for one person. It's all hearsay for everyone after that.

That's true. What is your educational and religious background?

My parents moved me through a lot of denominations. First Catholic, then Baptist, then agnostic, then a few non-denominational churches, then Apostolic/Pentecostal then disinterest around the age of 17. I was a believer past this point, just lazy. Disinterest grew into disbelief, disbelief coupled with my parent's continued attempts to convert me led to questions, questions led me here, and now I'm still waiting for answers to the big ones. I've been exposed to a lot of different interpretations of what Christianity means to a lot of different people.
As far as education, I have an AS in psychology and a BS in computer science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In 2006 Wired Magazine author Mark Wolf coins the phrase, "New Atheist." The author described Richard Dawkins arguments as "logical," demonstrating that journalism schools don't require one to have even a basic understanding of logic.

Once open to scrutiny, professional philosophers that shared the atheistic worldview, but not the propagandistic approach, started speaking out.

Michael Ruse, atheist, philosopher of biology at Florida State, and author of hundreds of popular and scholarly papers, observes in an article about the new atheists,

"I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a bloody disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so."

Read more at Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster - Science and the Sacred

There are a host of rhetorical tricks played by so-called New Atheist and their fundamentalist followers these days. These tricks have leached into intellectually-challenged minds for decades and have achieved a certain acceptance by tweeting millennials and their ilk.

The goal of this series will be to help Christians defend against the rhetoric with rationality. There is much to be discussed with "Seekers," but little or none with "Seekers In Name Only," referred to as SINOs.

I will arrange these threads by the logical fallacy deployed by these New Atheists in order to serve as both a critique but also to familiarize the reader with plenty of examples so as to not follow in their footsteps.

Definitions are a good place to start. Dictionaries used to be a good resource but slang and Wikipedia have led to equivocation in favor of definitions that are not either historical or very descriptive.

You get to define the terms of an argument but when making truth claims make them clear by defining terms.

"God exists," is a truth-claim.

"God does not exist," is a truth-claim.

In both cases a truth-claim is being made.

In both cases the truth-claim must be defended.

Now historically they were defended. But recently, the last few decades, the New Atheist says, "Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods," by this redefinition they hope to avoid the burden of proof. But it muddles the meaning of "atheism," quite badly.

On this view, my cat and dog are "Atheists."

I'm sitting on an "Atheist," chair as I write this thread on my "Atheist," ipad.

If we wanted to join the New Atheist in their word games we could say that "Theism is the lack of belief that their are no gods," BAM we no longer have to defend our claim because I is stated in the negative!

Just kidding here. We do not have to act as if we haven't ever had a philosophy 101 class. We can take an intellectual honest route of defending our claims.

Of coarse we would give various arguments such as:

Cosmological (Leibniz/Kalam)

Teleological (fine-tuning or design inference for life from DNA etc.)

Moral

Existence of miracles/ fulfilled prophecy

Various arguments from desire (no atheists in fox holes)

Now to my theist friends I give the following advise:

1 - Learn how to spot logical fallacies and not use them in an argument.

2 - We can be generous to those who are genuinely seeking. If you were unaware of some of these tricks so too may some of the seekers be.

3 - If the advise above fails to help, you may just have to disengage. I often link debates and other critical peer-reviewed discussions so my opponent can engage the real argument and not play tricks. But many of these individuals are SINOs as mentioned above. You will determine this by their refusal to do the smallest amount of research on topics.
A blanket statement advising a philosophy 101 course at their nearest jr. college when they are finally motivated to get up off their couch should suffice as an exit strategy.

4 - Remember that you engaged the conversation in good-faith and have been manipulated by propaganda. Propaganda is a shortcut for the intellectual lazy or intellectually challenged. You don't (I hope) use propaganda to manipulate the seeker, you deserve the same respect. Don't be bullied by ignorant fools.

This advise cuts both ways. Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Duane Gish all use similar fallacious propagandistic approaches to manipulate people to adopt the Christian Worldview.

5. We are not "proving anything!"

Since Descartes modern philosophy has shown that we can't "prove" we are not a brain in a vat being manipulated to experience everything we experience. In fact we can't "prove" we live in an external world, with other minds (people), or that the past is real, or that the world operates consistently over time. In none. Our most foundational knowledge assumptions are "provable," what are the chances of proving theological truths based on historical information, especially given all the competing explanatory inferences?

So don't get drawn into "proving" just focus on theism being the best explanation of the things we experience and the concepts we know.

For theists, I recommend anything by William Lane Craig, his site is a valuable resource for beginners and advanced apologetics.

For atheists, I recommend Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Quinten Smith, Kai Nielsen, J.L. Mackey, Michael Ruse, and the most prolific of the bunch (before he abandoned atheism), Antony Flew.

People to avoid do to propagandistic approaches Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Atkins, Krauss, Coyne.

For good programming that engages these issues from a rational standpoint I advise a program called, "Closer to The Truth."

What you've said here is advisable, I'll admit, but what do we do if some of the confusion atheists sense and feel about Christianity actually comes (at times) from the mishandling of the Bible by Christians themselves and from faulty, half-baked hermeneutical considerations? Shouldn't Christians make sure their ducks are all in a row before assuming atheists are all to blame for their unbelief?

I'm just asking....................................................

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[zippy2006]

And as Variant pointed out, it is more about not expecting the argument to actually be new than it is that no such argument could possibly exist.

Actually if you read it more carefully Variant says that being presented with the same arguments over and over makes it "fairly easy to drift into #2." That is, makes it fairly easy to believe that all reasons to believe are insufficient.

Yeah, I followed that too (I lurk in a lot of places). I agree with TM that using the word "faith" for something like the belief that Australia exists is inappropriate. Although, yes, technically we could use the word faith for everything beyond the most basic things we can know, Descartes and all that.

And as I told TM, I defined faith and explained why belief in Australia falls into that category. Claiming that I defined faith as "everything beyond the most basic things we can know" is simply a strawman.

I agree that "faith" just means "belief", you saw that post I made, but it carries connotations with it. It's still a whole different thing to rely on someone to argue for us, without even hearing the arguments, and believing they argued well.

Arguments from authority are much more common than people like to admit. It happens most obviously when we take the word of an expert in some field due to their expertise.

The fine-tuning argument is a good one, for example (not great, but good). I didn't know enough about the cosmos to argue against it when I first heard it, sure. But I can watch Sean Carroll or Lawrence Krauss explain the problems with it, understand their reasoning, and then see its faults. That isn't the same as saying, "I saw there was a YouTube debate between Carroll and Craig, no I didn't watch it, but I have faith Carroll won". I did watch it, though, and he did win. That topic, anyways. He spun out of control in another direction for a bit and that was sloppy.

I agree--understanding an argument for yourself and evaluating it on your own is not faith.

Since we're talking about arguments to be formulated by atheists, we're talking about what attributes make up the essence of a god from their perspective. I think it's fair to say that the only attributes an atheist finds necessary would be the creator of the universe.

I think "Goodness" is also seen as an essential attribute of God, which comes into play in the argument from evil.

If the problem of evil wins, and god is proven to be less than perfectly good, it still doesn't disprove that anything He did in the Bible didn't happen. It could all still be 100% true, except when it describes God as "love" or "just".

It would undermine the inerrancy of the Bible and therefore undercut the various doctrines founded on that inerrancy.

Arguing against a creator is futile, except to argue that there is no good reason to start believing in one because there is no evidence for one. That is the atheist claim: evidence for God is bad; no one should have started believing in a god based on the reasons given. Revelation would be the only good evidence, in my opinion, but I've heard it best explained that revelation is only revelation for one person. It's all hearsay for everyone after that.

I think the pervasiveness of belief is a good and uncommon argument. Why did the vast majorities of humans throughout history believe in a God or gods? Not only is the atheist answer that most human beings are credulous or irrational arrogant, it also tends to preclude any serious effort at epistemology.

My parents moved me through a lot of denominations. First Catholic, then Baptist, then agnostic, then a few non-denominational churches, then Apostolic/Pentecostal then disinterest around the age of 17. I was a believer past this point, just lazy. Disinterest grew into disbelief, disbelief coupled with my parent's continued attempts to convert me led to questions, questions led me here, and now I'm still waiting for answers to the big ones. I've been exposed to a lot of different interpretations of what Christianity means to a lot of different people.

That's interesting. I think it would be hard to build a lasting faith on such shifting sands and changes, but it also probably gave you a unique insight into the variety of Christian and religious beliefs.

I was raised Catholic, then early on I fell away into agnosticism for about 10 years, and then I returned to the Church after considering the matter objectively. (Long story short)

As far as education, I have an AS in psychology and a BS in computer science.

Cool. I also have a BS in computer science.

 

[Non sequitur]

"God exists," is a truth-claim.

"God does not exist," is a truth-claim.

In both cases a truth-claim is being made.

In both cases the truth-claim must be defended.

All truth claims should be defended. Not seeing the problem here.

Now historically they were defended. But recently, the last few decades, the New Atheist says, "Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods," by this redefinition they hope to avoid the burden of proof. But it muddles the meaning of "atheism," quite badly.

Avoiding a burden of proof... not believing requires a burden of proof?

On this view, my cat and dog are "Atheists."

Cats and dogs can't process/understand claims made. Bad analogy.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree--understanding an argument for yourself and evaluating it on your own is not faith.

Well there you go. Your statement that New Atheists put faith in people like "The Four Horsemen" to handle the arguments for them ignores the fact that many of these "followers" have looked at the arguments themselves and evaluated them on their own.

I think "Goodness" is also seen as an essential attribute of God, which comes into play in the argument from evil.

I don't see how being good or evil has any basis on whether all of existence has an intelligent creator or not. We could have been made by an evil god, it isn't contradictory to be evil and omnipotent.

I've been thinking about putting up "The Evil God Challenge" but I don't think anything productive would come of it. Too many people wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference between "prove that God being good is more likely" and "I think God is evil".

It would undermine the inerrancy of the Bible and therefore undercut the various doctrines founded on that inerrancy.

Sort of... It wouldn't mean that He didn't do things the Bible says He did, it wouldn't mean that He didn't say the things to people that the Bible says He did, and it wouldn't mean that He didn't inspire people to write the Bible the way they did. All it would mean is that His motivations for doing the things the Bible says He did would be wrong. "He isn't the person you think He is" would be a valid statement, but "He" still exists.

I also want to start a thread on that one too: Bible contradictions. NV made one a long time ago that got closed, but he started with assuming the contradictions were true and arguing about what that means. I just want a light one that lets people hash out the various alleged contradictions. I think Bible contradictions are like pop atheism. Much lighter topic than most arguments. Maybe it won't get shut down.

I think the pervasiveness of belief is a good and uncommon argument. Why did the vast majorities of humans throughout history believe in a God or gods? Not only is the atheist answer that most human beings are credulous or irrational arrogant, it also tends to preclude any serious effort at epistemology.

Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, makes an attempt to explain why humans are irrational in the way that they are about believing in a god. Basically we evolved a propensity to commit type one errors because of tigers in bushes. No need to derail the thread going into details, but the arguments about humans being irrational aren't as shallow as what you've presented.

That's interesting. I think it would be hard to build a lasting faith on such shifting sands and changes, but it also probably gave you a unique insight into the variety of Christian and religious beliefs.

Well, it certainly gave me a flexible view of what Christianity can be.

 

[zippy2006]

Well there you go. Your statement that New Atheists put faith in people like "The Four Horsemen" to handle the arguments for them ignores the fact that many of these "followers" have looked at the arguments themselves and evaluated them on their own.

Except my claim was that New Atheists are comfortable in assuming the faulty nature of arguments they have never studied in part due to their faith in popular atheists. So your response fails to address my point.

I don't see how being good or evil has any basis on whether all of existence has an intelligent creator or not. We could have been made by an evil god, it isn't contradictory to be evil and omnipotent.

That's probably because you aren't aware of Augustine's theological polemics again the Manicheans or Thomas Aquinas' elaboration on Augustine's metaphysics in the form of the transcendentals. Goodness is part and parcel of the conception of God on classical theism, even apart from the Scriptures. I give some references here.

I've been thinking about putting up "The Evil God Challenge" but I don't think anything productive would come of it. Too many people wouldn't be able to distinguish the difference between "prove that God being good is more likely" and "I think God is evil".

Well you would apparently be provisionally arguing that God is evil in order to elicit contrary arguments for God's goodness, so I don't see this as a big problem.

I also want to start a thread on that one too: Bible contradictions. NV made one a long time ago that got closed, but he started with assuming the contradictions were true and arguing about what that means. I just want a light one that lets people hash out the various alleged contradictions. I think Bible contradictions are like pop atheism. Much lighter topic than most arguments. Maybe it won't get shut down.

Not a bad idea.

Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, makes an attempt to explain why humans are irrational in the way that they are about believing in a god. Basically we evolved a propensity to commit type one errors because of tigers in bushes. No need to derail the thread going into details, but the arguments about humans being irrational aren't as shallow as what you've presented.

If the atheist develops a causal explanation for why certain types of beliefs are often inaccurate then they would successfully sidestep the argument I gave, but it seems that such an argument presupposes the idea that belief in God is an error. For the theist such a causal relation would show forth truth rather than falsity. And if we remain agnostic about whether belief in God is true or false, then my original argument stands. But this would all depend on the specific nature of Shermer's argument and whether he does presuppose belief in God is an error.

I had expected you to accuse me of an ad populum fallacy. In fact I think arguments from consensus can be effective insofar as they are probabilistic rather than strictly deductive.

Well, it certainly gave me a flexible view of what Christianity can be.

Right.

 

[Moral Orel]

Except my claim was that New Atheists are comfortable in assuming the faulty nature of arguments they have never studied in part due to their faith in popular atheists. So your response fails to address my point.

What does their "faith in popular atheists" have to do with anything then? I'm not understanding your point if what I said isn't a refutation of it. What do regular atheists have faith in popular atheists for other than what I assumed: arguing for them about arguments they never heard.

That's probably because you aren't aware of Augustine's theological polemics again the Manicheans or Thomas Aquinas' elaboration on Augustine's metaphysics in the form of the transcendentals. Goodness is part and parcel of the conception of God on classical theism, even apart from the Scriptures. I give some references here.

Arguing about this deserves it's own thread.

Well you would apparently be provisionally arguing that God is evil in order to elicit contrary arguments for God's goodness, so I don't see this as a big problem.

Yeah, you don't see a problem with it. Now imagine you're one of those posters that posts nothing but scripture and think how you would react to such a thread. Have you seen some of the responses to my much more benign threads?

If the atheist develops a causal explanation for why certain types of beliefs are often inaccurate then they would successfully sidestep the argument I gave, but it seems that such an argument presupposes the idea that belief in God is an error. For the theist such a causal relation would show forth truth rather than falsity. And if we remain agnostic about whether belief in God is true or false, then my original argument stands. But this would all depend on the specific nature of Shermer's argument and whether he does presuppose belief in God is an error.

I had expected you to accuse me of an ad populum fallacy. In fact I think arguments from consensus can be effective insofar as they are probabilistic rather than strictly deductive.

You said that simply calling theists irrational was arrogant (when it's done that simply, I agree), I showed someone explaining why all humans are irrational in a specific way. Again, nothing is an argument against the existence of God, there are only arguments that say, "your evidence is bad". His point is only a refutation of the "argument" that says "Oh yeah? Then why do so many people believe in God then, huh?!". It's an entirely plausible explanation that takes all the wind out of the sails of an argument that essentially states, "people believe, therefore it's true".

To say that arguments from consensus are probabilistic, you would have to look at all the times there was a consensus belief amongst humans, and then determine how often they were right. There's no connection between "a lot of people believe this" and "this is true". The Earth ain't flat, slavery ain't okay, mental illness ain't caused by spirits/demons, etc... And yet some people still think all those things are true.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Except my claim was that New Atheists are comfortable in assuming the faulty nature of arguments they have never studied in part due to their faith in popular atheists.

What exactly do you base your claim on? I'm apparently not a "new atheist", since your claim doesn't apply to me. The only way to know if any "new atheists" actually exist would be to get an admission that your claim applies to them. I don't think I've ever seen that from any of the atheists here, nor do I see it in print or video.

 

[Uber Genius]

dark
därk/
noun
1.the absence of light in a place.

1. "Carolyn was sitting in the dark"

Unless you're angry at the word "dark", and think it shouldn't exist, you might want to rethink this.

Atheism isn't an object with properties like a chair or a rabbit. It's a response to one single proposition.



Except that, and I'm surprised I have to explain this, atheism is defined by a response to only one single proposition. There is not an infinite number of potential properties to address.



Only if they're:

"A being with the capacity to consciously accept or reject claims who has consciously rejected all theistic claims presented to them."



You can define theism as a square circle if you'd like, but that has nothing to do with the definition of atheism.

It seems to me that you're just angry that atheists hold a position that you can't knock down. So you insist they believe something they don't claim to believe in order to do so. Besides being a straw man, it seems desperate.



Trying to antagonize me while at the same time making logical mistakes that invalidate your position really isn't something I'd advise. It doesn't make you look intelligent... just angry.



Since you know that I've not defined "atheism" in such a way that the above applies, I can only conclude that you're doing so, again, to be antagonistic. And it's also intellectually dishonest.

Do you have a point to this thread other than being toxic to the community?

Wow.

4 agrees by equally uneducated "seekers." Impressive.

I didn't state that there are no examples of opposite property bearers as your false analogy suggests.

Just that you have conflated the 4 propositions stated above and equivocated 3!

Simple enough for someone with a degree in philosophy, so I assume you are trying to mislead people ( 4 is a reasonable number) congrats.

Once again you missed the point.

Instead of focusing on to various propositions, you use a semantic approach that any philosophy 101 professor would ding you on. You are equivocation terms

Claims 1 - P exists

Claim 2 - P does not exist

Claim 3 - P may exist or not exist

Claim 4 - It is impossible to know whether P exists or not.

These questions are typical of ontology! Why pretend (more tricks) not t know that!

Every undergrad in philosophy knows this principle.

Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You are using semantic rhetorical tricks to fool those who know nothing about philosophy or defending claims.

Thanks for providing a nice example of the tricks New atheists play.

This comment brought to you by Zebras, clouds, platonic forms everywhere, babies, and every agnostic who ever lived who according to new atheist definitions are all
ATHEISTS!

Way to conflate! Bravo.

P.s.

Please provide a response of all the properties which are LACKED by apples!